Comprehensively dumbed down speed test for consumers to beat up theirISP with

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 May 2016 09:28:10 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

As my next-door neighbour pointed out, if you have 2 teenagers in the house
4 or 5 Mbps is insufficient.

40 to 50 Mbps could well be insufficient if it's accompanied by an
inadequate upstream channel which those teenagers are saturating by
swapping large files such as video clips or gaming software.

There's more to the internet than just watching stuff, but for
historical reasons most services are so asymmetrical that you have to
opt for ridiculous downstream rates in order to get usable upstream.

You don't think it's right then that those who monopolise a valuable technological
resource for utterly inane purposes should pay a premium for that?

It's nothing to do with monopolising anything. It doesn't seem right
that a 10-20Mb/s ADSL downstream channel can be brought to a
standstill by means of 1Mb/s worth of traffic in the opposite
direction. I'd say it was bad design if I didn't know the historical
reasons for it. I don't know how easy it would be to correct it.

At one time, that degree of asymmetry may have made sense in terms of
typical usage, as the vast majority of the traffic would have been
downstream, very few people having the means to generate anything
other than text emails or commands to send upstream. But then we
invented digital video cameras and made them cheap enough for
everybody to have one in their pocket, and then video sharing
websites, and blogs, and selfies etc, and an entire subculture that
never existed before now generates masses of material that they all
want to share with the world, so the capacity of the upstream channel
has now become very important.

Only to them. The rest of us regard it as a complete waste of all four dimensions,
and probably think any constraint placed on it would actually be A Good Thing.

On Tue, 24 May 2016 17:46:31 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

As my next-door neighbour pointed out, if you have 2 teenagers in the house
4 or 5 Mbps is insufficient.

40 to 50 Mbps could well be insufficient if it's accompanied by an
inadequate upstream channel which those teenagers are saturating by
swapping large files such as video clips or gaming software.

There's more to the internet than just watching stuff, but for
historical reasons most services are so asymmetrical that you have to
opt for ridiculous downstream rates in order to get usable upstream.

You don't think it's right then that those who monopolise a valuable technological
resource for utterly inane purposes should pay a premium for that?

It's nothing to do with monopolising anything. It doesn't seem right
that a 10-20Mb/s ADSL downstream channel can be brought to a
standstill by means of 1Mb/s worth of traffic in the opposite
direction. I'd say it was bad design if I didn't know the historical
reasons for it. I don't know how easy it would be to correct it.

At one time, that degree of asymmetry may have made sense in terms of
typical usage, as the vast majority of the traffic would have been
downstream, very few people having the means to generate anything
other than text emails or commands to send upstream. But then we
invented digital video cameras and made them cheap enough for
everybody to have one in their pocket, and then video sharing
websites, and blogs, and selfies etc, and an entire subculture that
never existed before now generates masses of material that they all
want to share with the world, so the capacity of the upstream channel
has now become very important.

Only to them. The rest of us regard it as a complete waste of all four dimensions,
and probably think any constraint placed on it would actually be A Good Thing.

There are a lot of things that I regard as a waste of time, but which
other people like, and I don't reckon it's up to me to judge their use
of their time if they're paying for the service.

The only issue I have with this is the asymmetry of most internet
services, which is no longer suitable for typical use, because
circumstances have changed. You'd think it a bit odd if a motorway had
five lanes going in one direction and a single track gravel path going
in the other. The validity of anybody's journey would be irrelevant.
You'd just think it was a badly designed road.

Rod.

brightside S9 wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

They used to do 40/10 or 80/20, now they do 40/2 or 80/20

It seems to me that existing Plusnet customers have been pushed to a
lower upload speed. When I signed up 17 months ago I got 36 /18.
A check right now reveals 36.09 / 7.26.

Not heard anything about cutting rates for existing customers.

My neighbour signed up for 40/10 at the same time I signed up for 80/20
he actually seemed to get 40/20, maybe they've realised a few accounts
such as his and yours were "overprovisioned" and have restricted them to
what they were supposed to be all along?

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 May 2016 17:46:31 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

As my next-door neighbour pointed out, if you have 2 teenagers in the house
4 or 5 Mbps is insufficient.

40 to 50 Mbps could well be insufficient if it's accompanied by an
inadequate upstream channel which those teenagers are saturating by
swapping large files such as video clips or gaming software.

There's more to the internet than just watching stuff, but for
historical reasons most services are so asymmetrical that you have to
opt for ridiculous downstream rates in order to get usable upstream.

You don't think it's right then that those who monopolise a valuable
technological
resource for utterly inane purposes should pay a premium for that?

It's nothing to do with monopolising anything. It doesn't seem right
that a 10-20Mb/s ADSL downstream channel can be brought to a
standstill by means of 1Mb/s worth of traffic in the opposite
direction. I'd say it was bad design if I didn't know the historical
reasons for it. I don't know how easy it would be to correct it.

At one time, that degree of asymmetry may have made sense in terms of
typical usage, as the vast majority of the traffic would have been
downstream, very few people having the means to generate anything
other than text emails or commands to send upstream. But then we
invented digital video cameras and made them cheap enough for
everybody to have one in their pocket, and then video sharing
websites, and blogs, and selfies etc, and an entire subculture that
never existed before now generates masses of material that they all
want to share with the world, so the capacity of the upstream channel
has now become very important.

Only to them. The rest of us regard it as a complete waste of all four
dimensions,
and probably think any constraint placed on it would actually be A Good Thing.

There are a lot of things that I regard as a waste of time, but which
other people like, and I don't reckon it's up to me to judge their use
of their time if they're paying for the service.

But they're not paying for it. The 'entire subculture that never existed before'
that 'now generates masses of material that they all want to share with the world'
are teenagers. They get someone else to pay. It's a well-known fact.

Andy Burns wrote:
brightside S9 wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

They used to do 40/10 or 80/20, now they do 40/2 or 80/20

It seems to me that existing Plusnet customers have been pushed to
a lower upload speed. When I signed up 17 months ago I got 36 /18.
A check right now reveals 36.09 / 7.26.

Not heard anything about cutting rates for existing customers.

My neighbour signed up for 40/10 at the same time I signed up for
80/20 he actually seemed to get 40/20, maybe they've realised a few
accounts such as his and yours were "overprovisioned" and have
restricted them to what they were supposed to be all along?

AIUI they were once generous and did 40/20 officially using Openreach
80/20 product and limiting downstream themselves.

Now unfortunately they have turned from generous to stingy and they
don't even use the Openreach 40/10 product, instead the only option for
those who choose their 38 offering is to be on the Openreach 40/2
product, which is a couple of quid cheaper for Plusnet vs 40/10.

I believe even if you try to buy 80/20, if your line can't make over 40
down then you will be put on 40/2.

Existing customers may not loose their product, but beware if
re-contracting as you may then loose it.

I notice that their website for the "good honest Yorkshire broadband"
makes no mention of upload speed and on the 38 meg product has the words
"perfect for uploading" :-(

I am an 80/20 customer and Plusnet is OK for me, I would once have
recommended them, but wouldn't now because of this "hidden" change.

Andy Furniss wrote:

I notice that their website for the "good honest Yorkshire broadband"
makes no mention of upload speed and on the 38 meg product has the words
"perfect for uploading":-(

Ooh, that's nasty.

I am an 80/20 customer and Plusnet is OK for me, I would once have
recommended them, but wouldn't now because of this "hidden" change.

Same here, I couldn't justify 80/20 to most friends/family, but I'm sure
as hell not going to recommend 40/2.

Norman Wells wrote:
"Andy Furniss" [email protected] wrote in message
...
Norman Wells wrote:
"chris" wrote in message
...
On 21/05/2016 12:33, David wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 16:48:27 +0100, Woody wrote:

Speedtest.net shows me as getting around 74Mb/s - which is
correct as I am on VM.

fast.com shows 51Mb/s

Just tried it and it shows 150Mb/sec down. Ties in with the
regular SamKnows monitoring. The day and time you test may,
of course, make a difference.

Doesn't show an upload speed - the FAQ says that is because
this doesn't matter to most people.

Rubbish!

Most people don't understand how it works, but if they were
sold a product based on upload speed alone they'd care very
quickly.

Whereas download speed is important for willy wavers, but for
little else.

Well I'm glad we've got 64 mbit rather than the 6 we had on adsl.

Last week alone, 3 xbones new map pack for a game we all play = 25
gig.

Bought a game for myself = 40 gig download.

Wouldn't getting a life be rather more productive?

My life's already gotten thank you.

Happy to have unproductive fun.

Glad not to be a fuddy spending time tutting at others on
usenet.

On Tue, 24 May 2016 19:12:26 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 May 2016 17:46:31 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

As my next-door neighbour pointed out, if you have 2 teenagers in the house
4 or 5 Mbps is insufficient.

40 to 50 Mbps could well be insufficient if it's accompanied by an
inadequate upstream channel which those teenagers are saturating by
swapping large files such as video clips or gaming software.

There's more to the internet than just watching stuff, but for
historical reasons most services are so asymmetrical that you have to
opt for ridiculous downstream rates in order to get usable upstream.

You don't think it's right then that those who monopolise a valuable
technological
resource for utterly inane purposes should pay a premium for that?

It's nothing to do with monopolising anything. It doesn't seem right
that a 10-20Mb/s ADSL downstream channel can be brought to a
standstill by means of 1Mb/s worth of traffic in the opposite
direction. I'd say it was bad design if I didn't know the historical
reasons for it. I don't know how easy it would be to correct it.

At one time, that degree of asymmetry may have made sense in terms of
typical usage, as the vast majority of the traffic would have been
downstream, very few people having the means to generate anything
other than text emails or commands to send upstream. But then we
invented digital video cameras and made them cheap enough for
everybody to have one in their pocket, and then video sharing
websites, and blogs, and selfies etc, and an entire subculture that
never existed before now generates masses of material that they all
want to share with the world, so the capacity of the upstream channel
has now become very important.

Only to them. The rest of us regard it as a complete waste of all four
dimensions,
and probably think any constraint placed on it would actually be A Good Thing.

There are a lot of things that I regard as a waste of time, but which
other people like, and I don't reckon it's up to me to judge their use
of their time if they're paying for the service.

But they're not paying for it. The 'entire subculture that never existed before'
that 'now generates masses of material that they all want to share with the world'
are teenagers. They get someone else to pay. It's a well-known fact.

Maybe their parents are paying for it then. At any rate, I'm not, so I
don't care. Whoever is paying for it, someone else's use of someone
else's internet service is none of my business and beside the point.

Which is... that an asymmetric internet service is a badly matched set
of parameters in relation to typical modern usage, because we are no
longer just "punters" buying "content" and only using the upstream
channel to signal what we want. A great many users are creating their
own content now, and whatever you or I think of that, if it's their
internet service they're perfectly entitled to do it.

Rod.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 May 2016 19:12:26 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 24 May 2016 17:46:31 +0100, "Norman Wells"
wrote:

As my next-door neighbour pointed out, if you have 2 teenagers in the house
4 or 5 Mbps is insufficient.

40 to 50 Mbps could well be insufficient if it's accompanied by an
inadequate upstream channel which those teenagers are saturating by
swapping large files such as video clips or gaming software.

There's more to the internet than just watching stuff, but for
historical reasons most services are so asymmetrical that you have to
opt for ridiculous downstream rates in order to get usable upstream.

You don't think it's right then that those who monopolise a valuable
technological
resource for utterly inane purposes should pay a premium for that?

It's nothing to do with monopolising anything. It doesn't seem right
that a 10-20Mb/s ADSL downstream channel can be brought to a
standstill by means of 1Mb/s worth of traffic in the opposite
direction. I'd say it was bad design if I didn't know the historical
reasons for it. I don't know how easy it would be to correct it.

At one time, that degree of asymmetry may have made sense in terms of
typical usage, as the vast majority of the traffic would have been
downstream, very few people having the means to generate anything
other than text emails or commands to send upstream. But then we
invented digital video cameras and made them cheap enough for
everybody to have one in their pocket, and then video sharing
websites, and blogs, and selfies etc, and an entire subculture that
never existed before now generates masses of material that they all
want to share with the world, so the capacity of the upstream channel
has now become very important.

Only to them. The rest of us regard it as a complete waste of all four
dimensions,
and probably think any constraint placed on it would actually be A Good Thing.

There are a lot of things that I regard as a waste of time, but which
other people like, and I don't reckon it's up to me to judge their use
of their time if they're paying for the service.

But they're not paying for it. The 'entire subculture that never existed before'
that 'now generates masses of material that they all want to share with the world'
are teenagers. They get someone else to pay. It's a well-known fact.

Maybe their parents are paying for it then. At any rate, I'm not, so I
don't care. Whoever is paying for it, someone else's use of someone
else's internet service is none of my business and beside the point.

Which is... that an asymmetric internet service is a badly matched set
of parameters in relation to typical modern usage, because we are no
longer just "punters" buying "content" and only using the upstream
channel to signal what we want. A great many users are creating their
own content now, and whatever you or I think of that, if it's their
internet service they're perfectly entitled to do it.

If they're willing to pay, fine. But don't try to kid me they're 'creating their
own content' as if it was worth something when it's clearly not. It's dross. You
know that, I know that, everyone knows that. And it's a waste of time and space.

"Andy Furniss" [email protected] wrote in message
...
Norman Wells wrote:
"Andy Furniss" [email protected] wrote in message
...
Norman Wells wrote:
"chris" wrote in message
...
On 21/05/2016 12:33, David wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2016 16:48:27 +0100, Woody wrote:

Speedtest.net shows me as getting around 74Mb/s - which is
correct as I am on VM.

fast.com shows 51Mb/s

Just tried it and it shows 150Mb/sec down. Ties in with the
regular SamKnows monitoring. The day and time you test may,
of course, make a difference.

Doesn't show an upload speed - the FAQ says that is because
this doesn't matter to most people.

Rubbish!

Most people don't understand how it works, but if they were
sold a product based on upload speed alone they'd care very
quickly.

Whereas download speed is important for willy wavers, but for
little else.

Well I'm glad we've got 64 mbit rather than the 6 we had on adsl.

Last week alone, 3 xbones new map pack for a game we all play = 25
gig.

Bought a game for myself = 40 gig download.

Wouldn't getting a life be rather more productive?

My life's already gotten thank you.

The facts, as you've stated them, sadly belie that.

Happy to have unproductive fun.

Glad not to be a fuddy spending time tutting at others on
usenet.

Good for you. Get back to your 'xbone' and your childish games if you think that's
any better.